Assessing dysphagia via telerehabilitation: Patient perceptions and satisfaction

44Citations
Citations of this article
136Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

To gain insight into factors which may influence future acceptance of dysphagia management via telerehabilitation, patients' perceptions were examined before and after a telerehabilitation assessment session. Forty adult patients with dysphagia (M =66 years, SD =16.25) completed pre- and post-session questionnaires which consisted of 14 matched questions worded to suit pre- and post-conditions. Questions explored comfort with the use of telerehabilitation, satisfaction with audio and video quality, benefits of telerehabilitation assessments and patients' preferred assessment modality. Questions were rated on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 3 = unsure, 5 = strongly agree). Patients' comfort with assessment via telerehabilitation was high in over 80% of the group both pre- and post-assessment. Pre-assessment, patients were unsure what to expect with the auditory and visual aspects of the videoconference, however there were significant positive changes reported post-experience. In relation to perceived benefits of telerehabilitation services in general, most patients believed in the value of telerehabilitation and post-assessment this increased to 90-100% agreement. Although 92% felt they would be comfortable receiving services via telerehabilitation, 45% of patients indicated ultimate preference for a traditional face-to-face assessment. The data highlight that patients are interested in and willing to receive services via telerehabilitation; however, any concerns should be addressed pre-assessment. © 2013 The Speech Pathology Association of Australia Limited.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Sharma, S., Ward, E. C., Burns, C., Theodoros, D., & Russell, T. (2013). Assessing dysphagia via telerehabilitation: Patient perceptions and satisfaction. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 15(2), 176–183. https://doi.org/10.3109/17549507.2012.689333

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free